This blog is about debating political issues, with specific reference to human rights

Geo’s Commitment Questioned by one Masood Khan

The line of questioning with Justice Tariq on Thursday ( 6/03/08) night program of Kamran Khan confirms that Geo or Jung Group is now toeing the line of a Establishment controlled by a Dictator.

Instead of making an issue that Why US Ambassadors or other US administration representative are interfering in the affairs of the elected Government making in Pakistan where people had gave verdict against Musharaf, Mr. Khan is questioning the Lawyers community tactics to remind new Parliament about their promises made to People by ignoring the fact that pressure groups has a important role in sustaining the Democracy. Pressure groups exist in all modern pluralist democracies and have sprung up on all sides. Independent media is another pressure group which should fairly represents the sentiments of the people.

You are requested to survey and represent the sentiments of the masses and don’t distort the re-awakening movement that society has been bestowed by the grace of Allah after many year of apathy. By supporting a Dictator, directly or indirectly, to become appointed agent of US or Israel over the elected representative of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, you will committing grave injustice to the sacrifices of the million of Peoples of t the sub-continent who had endowed their life and properties since 1857.

I hope this advice may stir your soul to the right path.

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

Published by alaiwah

ALAIWAH'S PHILOSOPHY
About 12 years ago, while studying Arabic in Cairo, I became friends with some Egyptian students. As we got to know each other better we also became concerned about each other’s way of life. They wanted to save my soul from eternally burning in hell by converting me to Islam. I wanted to save them from wasting their real life for an illusory afterlife by converting them to the secular worldview I grew up with.
In one of our discussions they asked me if I was sure that there is no proof for God’s existence.
The question took me by surprise. Where I had been intellectually socialized it was taken for granted that there was none.
I tried to remember Kant’s critique of the ontological proof for God. “Fine,” Muhammad said, “but what about this table, does its existence depend on a cause?” “Of course,” I answered. “And its cause depends on a further cause?” Muhammad was referring to the metaphysical proof for God’s existence, first formulated by the Muslim philosopher
Avicenna.
Avicenna argues, things that depend on a cause for their existence must have something that exists through itself as their first cause. And this necessary existent is God. I had a counter-argument to that to which they in turn had a rejoinder. The discussion ended inconclusively.
I did not convert to Islam, nor did my Egyptian friends become atheists. But I learned an important lesson from our discussions: that I hadn’t properly thought through some of the most basic convictions underlying my way of life and worldview — from God’s existence to the human good.
The challenge of my Egyptian friends forced me to think hard about these issues and defend views that had never been questioned in the milieu where I came from.
These discussions gave me first-hand insight into how deeply divided we are on fundamental moral, religious and philosophical questions. While many find these disagreements disheartening, I will argue that they can be a good thing — if we manage to make them fruitful for a culture debate.
Can we be sure that our beliefs about the world match how the world actually is and that our subjective preferences match what is objectively in our best interest? If the truth is important to us these are pressing questions.
We might value the truth for different reasons: because we want to live a life that is good and doesn’t just appear so; because we take knowing the truth to be an important component of the good life; because we consider living by the truth a moral obligation independent of any consequences; or because we want to come closer to God who is the Truth. Of course we wouldn’t hold our beliefs and values if we weren’t convinced that they are true. But that’s no evidence that they are.
Weren’t my Egyptian friends just as convinced of their views as I was of mine? More generally: don’t we find a bewildering diversity of beliefs and values, all held with great conviction, across different times and cultures? If considerations such as these lead you to concede that your present convictions could be false, then you are a fallibilist.
And if you are a fallibilist you can see why valuing the truth and valuing a culture of debate are related: because you will want to critically examine your beliefs and values, for which a culture of debate offers an excellent setting.
View all posts by alaiwah